Letters as Loot

A sociolinguistic approach to seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Dutch

| Leiden University
| Leiden University
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027200815 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book Open Access
ISBN 9789027269577
 
The study of letter writing is at the heart of the historical-sociolinguistic enterprise. Private letters, in particular, offer an unprecedented view on language history. This book presents an in-depth study of the language of letters focussing on a unique collection of Dutch private letters from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which comprises letters from the lower, middle and upper ranks, written by men as well as women.

The book discusses the key issues of formulaic language and the degree of orality of private letters, it questions the importance of letter-writing manuals, and reveals remarkable patterns of social, regional and gender variation in a wide range of linguistic features. Arguing for writing experience as an important factor in historical linguistics generally, the book offers numerous new perspectives on the history of Dutch.

The monograph is of interest to a wide readership, ranging from scholars of historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, Germanic linguistics, sociology and social history to (advanced) graduate and postgraduate students in courses on language variation and change.

[Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 2]  2014.  xiii, 426 pp.
Publishing status: Available

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Table of Contents
Preface and acknowledgements
xi–xiv
Chapter 1. Letters as Loot: A historical-sociolinguistic challenge
1–18
Chapter 2. Sounds and signs: From local to supralocal usage
19–74
Chapter 3. Epistolary formulae: Functions and text composition
75–128
Chapter 4. Variation and change in formulaic language
129–172
Chapter 5. Detailing the writing process: Formulaic language, social and professional writers, and the influence of letter-writing manuals
173–202
Chapter 6. Forms of address
203–246
Chapter 7. Clause chaining between spoken and written language
247–288
Chapter 8. Variation and change in the relative clause
289–322
Chapter 9. Apocope of final schwa
323–362
Chapter 10. Clausal and local negation
363–392
Chapter 11. Harvesting: Reflection and evaluation
393–408
References
409–424
Index
425–246
“This book makes an original and worthwhile contribution to the study of the development of language in a social and historical context. The analyses are undertaken with exemplary thoroughness, presented with copious detail and compared with studies in other European languages.”
“Drawing on unique source material and presenting detailed case studies of a variety of features from seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Dutch, this well-written and important study of private letters from writers of all social classes and different geographical backgrounds offers an entirely new perspective on the history of Dutch.”
“[A] rich, nuanced and substantial contribution to the history of Dutch, and the field of historical sociolinguistics more generally. As a text, it works as a reference monograph; of interest to researchers of specific changes in the Dutch language, but also for scholars of other languages or periods seeking guidance on methodological approach, or a theoretical model. [...] The book is a testament to a treasure trove of letters, newly discovered, that offer a richness of descriptive and interpretative sociolinguistic insights.”
“The Letters as Loot project has done wonderful work in creating this rich sociolinguistic corpus. The authors have made the most of their dataset with their selection of research topics, and sociolinguistic research in other languages is often referred to. The attention to detail and the meticulousness of research throughout this excellent book are truly impressive, and the analysis is highly satisfying in its step-by-step pursuit for an overarching synthesis. [...] As a historical sociolinguist whose field is eighteenth-century English, I will certainly revisit and make use of the findings presented here.”
References

References

Aalberse, Suzanne
2009Inflectional economy and politeness: Morphology-internal and morphology-external factors in the loss of second person marking in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Alonso-Almeida, Francisco
2008The pragmatics of and-conjunctives in Middle English medical recipes: A relevance theory description. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 9. 171–199.Google Scholar
Anonymous
1750Le nouveau et parfait secretaire en hollandois et francois / De nieuwe volmaakte Hollandsche en Fransche secretaris. 2nd ed. Rotterdam: Voor rekening van de Compagnie.Google Scholar
1614Materi-boecxken, oft voorschriften / seer bequaem voor die joncheyt / om wel te leeren lesen / schryven / ende een aenporringhe tot alle deuchden. Utrecht: Harman Hendricks van Borculo.Google Scholar
1686Matery-boeksken, ofte voor-schriften / seer bequaem voor de jonckheydt / om wel te leeren leesen / schryven / ende een opweckinge tot deughden. Amsterdam: Gijsbert de Groot.Google Scholar
Anonymous.
1770Nieuwe handleiding tot de manier van brieven schryven. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: S.J. Baalde.Google Scholar
ANS = Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. http://​www​.let​.ru​.nl​/ans​/e​-ans/
Auer, Peter
2002Schreiben in der Hypotaxe – Sprechen in der Parataxe?: Kritische Bemerkungen zu einem Gemeinplatz. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 39. 131–138.Google Scholar
2009On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31. 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Austin, Frances
1973aEpistolary conventions in the Clift family correspondence. English Studies 54. 9–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1973bEpistolary conventions in the Clift family correspondence (Concluded). English Studies 54. 129–140. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994The effect of exposure to Standard English: The language of William Clift. In Dieter Stein & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English 1600–1800, 285–313. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2004 Heaving this importunity: The survival of opening formulas in letters in the eighteenth and nineteenth Centuries. Historical Sociolinguistics & Sociohistorical Linguistics 4. http://​www​.let​.leidenuniv​.nl​/hsl​_shl​/heaving​_this​_importunity​.htmGoogle Scholar
Bannet, Eve Tavor
2005Empire of letters: Letter manuals and transatlantic correspondence, 1688–1820. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S.. et al.
2006Dynamische Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten (Dyna­SAND). Amsterdam, Meertens Instituut. URL: http://​www​.meertens​.knaw​.nl​/sand/.Google Scholar
Bax, Marcel
2010Epistolary presentation rituals: Face-work, politeness, and ritual display in early modern Dutch letter-writing. In Jonathan Culpeper & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), Historical (Im)politenes, 37–85. Bern etc.: Lang.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan. C.
2004English in modern times: 1700–1945. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Beaman, Karen
1984Coordination and subordination revisited: Syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse, 45–80. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Becker, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morton H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman & Tom Schoenemann
2009Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 59. 1–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Belle, Jan
1748Korte wegwyzer, ter spel- spraak- en dichtkunden. Haarlem: Izaakvan der Vinne.Google Scholar
van den Berg, Willem
1978Briefreflectie in briefinstructie. Documentatieblad werkgroep Achttiende Eeuw 1978. 1–22.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander
2005Social networks and historical sociolinguistics: Studies in morphosyntactic variation in the Paston letters (1421–1503). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012The Uniformitarian Principle and the risk of anachronisms in language and social history. In Hernández-Campoy & Conde-Silvestre (eds.), 80–98.
Berteloot, Amand
1983Bijdrage tot een klankatlas van het dertiende-eeuwse Middelnederlands. 2 vols.Ghent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.Google Scholar
2003Van du naar ghi: Waarom het pronomen du uit het Nederlands ver­dween. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 119. 204–217.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas
1988Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Dimensions of variation among 18th-century registers. In: H.-J. Diller & M. Görlach (eds.), Towards a history of English as a history of genres, 89–109. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar
2009A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14. 381–417. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad
2009Register, genre and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan
1989Drift and the evolution of English style: a history of three genres. Language 65. 487–517.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D.
1990Language and species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Blaak, Jeroen
2009Literacy in everyday life: Reading and writing in Early Modern Dutch diaries. Leiden & Boston: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boonstra, O.W.A.
1993De waardij van eene vroege opleiding: Een onderzoek naar de implicaties van het alfabetisme op het leven van inwoners van Eindhoven en omliggende gemeenten, 1800–1920. Wageningen: Afdeling Agrarische Geschiedenis, Landbouw Universiteit.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert
1995The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
de Booy, E.P.
1977De weldaet der scholen: Het plattelandsonderwijs in de provincie Utrecht van 1580 tot het begin der 19de eeuw. Bilthoven: Stichtse Historische Reeks.Google Scholar
1980Kweekhoven der wijsheid: Basis- en vervolgonderwijs in de steden van de provincie Utrecht van 1580 tot het begin der 19de eeuw. Zutphen: Walburg Pers & Stichtse Historische Reeks.Google Scholar
Boutkan, Dirk & Maarten Kossmann
1998Over sjwa-apocope in het Nederlands. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 114. 164–171.Google Scholar
Boyce Hendriks, Jennifer
1998Immigration and linguistic change: A socio-historical linguistic study on the effect of German and Southern Dutch immigration on the development of the Northern Dutch vernacular in 16th/17th-century Holland. Unpublished dissertation. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Boyce, Jennifer & Robert Howell
1996Rewriting the history of Dutch: On the use of social history to explain linguistic change. In William Z. Shetter & Inger Van der Cruysse (eds.), Contemporary explorations in the culture of the Low Countries, 25–38. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Boyce Hendriks, Jennifer & Robert B. Howell
2000On the use and abuse of social history in the history of the Dutch language. In Thomas F. Shannon & Johan P. Snapper (eds.), The Berkeley conference on Dutch linguistics 1997, 253–277. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Brant, Clare
2006Eighteenth-century letters and British culture. Houndmills & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Braunius, S.W.P.C.
1964Van schrijver tot officier van administratie: 1597–1844. Marineblad 73. 345–357.Google Scholar
van Bree, Cor
1987Historische grammatica van het Nederlands. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Breton, N.
1645Nederduytsen briefdragher. Amsterdam: Jan van Hilten.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.
1996Pragmatic markers in English: grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephan C. Levinson
1978Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In: Esther N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness, 60–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1987Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruijn, Jaap R.
2008Schippers van de VOC in de achttiende eeuw aan de wal en op zee. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw.Google Scholar
Burridge, Kate
1993Syntactic change in Germanic: Aspects of language change in Germanic with particular reference to Middle Dutch. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2006From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82. 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson
2000Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society 23. 65–85.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1985Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In David R. Olson, Nancy Torrance & Angela Hildyard (eds.), Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing, 105–123. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1987Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988Linking intonation units in spoken English. In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 1–27. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
de la Chambre, Pierre
1648Verscheyden brieven, bequaem in de scholen te ghebruycken … Plusjeurs lettres missives, a l’usage des ecoles. Haarlem: Isaacvan Wesbusch.Google Scholar
Commandeur, P.N.M.
1988Het ontstaan van het modern Amsterdams: Over een verband tussen maatschappelijke ontwikkeling en taalontwikkeling. Taal & Tongval 40.159–172.Google Scholar
Corrigan, Roberta, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen M. Wheatley
(eds.) 2009Formulaic language. Volume 1: Distribution and historical change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian
1979On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 3. 239–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 1981aConversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague, Paris & New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
1981bIntroduction: Conversational routine. In: Coulmas 1981a: 1–18.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Tsuyoshi Ono
2007“Incrementing” in conversation: A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics 17. 513–552.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas
2007Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cowie, Anthony Paul
(ed.) 1998Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2000Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
2001Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse
2004Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, Tony
1996Language in history: Theories and texts. London & New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Dániel Z. Kádár
2010Historical (Im)politeness. Bern etc.: Peter Lang.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Merja Kytö
2010Early Modern English dialogues: spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daan, Jo
1982Solidariteit en distantie in de zeventiende eeuw: De aanspreekpronomina in de brieven. In Piet Van De Craen & Roland Willemyns (eds.), Sociolinguïstiek en ideologie, 113–134. Brussel: Vrije Universiteit. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen
2004The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Norman
1965The Litera Troili and English letters. The Review of English Studies. New series 16. 233–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Anne Catherine Simon
2009 On identifying basic discourse units in speech: theoretical and empirical issues. Discours 4. See http://​discours​.revues​.org​/5852.
Dibbets, Geert
1985Twe-spraack vande Nederduitsche letterkunst (1584). Ingeleid, geïnterpreteerd, van kommentaar voorzien en uitgegeven. Assen & Maastricht: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
1986Anthoni Smyters over de spelling van het Nederlands (Ao 1613). Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 102. 103–121.Google Scholar
1995De woordsoorten in de Nederlandse triviumgrammatica. Amsterdam & Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU & Nodus Publikationen. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dossena, Marina
2003“As this leaves me at present” – Formulaic usage, politeness, and social proximity in nineteenth-century Scottish emigrants’ letters. In Stephan Elspaß, Nils Langer, Joachim Scharloth & Wim Vandenbussche (eds.), Germanic language histories ‘from below’ (1700–2000), 13–29. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
DynaSAND
, see Barbiers et al. 2006.
Elmentaler, Michael
2000Zur Koexistenz graphematischer Systeme in der spätmittelalterlichen Stadt. In Michael Elmentaler (ed.), Regionalsprachen, Stadtsprachen und Institutionssprachen im historischen Prozess, 53–72. Vienna: Edition Praesens.Google Scholar
2001Der Erkenntniswert der schreibsprachlichen Variation für die Sprachgeschichte: Überlegungen zu den Ergebnissen eines Duisburger Graphematikprojektes. Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter 65. 290–314.Google Scholar
2003Struktur und Wandel vormoderner Schreibsprachen. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan
2005Sprachgeschichte von unten. Untersuchungen zum geschriebenen Alltagsdeutsch im 19. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007A twofold view ‘from below’: new perspectives on language histories and language historiographies. In Stephan Elspaß, Nils Langer, Joachim Scharloth & Wim Vandenbussche (eds.), Germanic language histories ‘from below’ (1700–2000), 3–9. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012aThe use of private letters and diaries in sociolinguistic investigation. In Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 156–169. Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012bBetween linguistic creativity and formulaic restriction: Cross-linguistic perspectives on nineteenth-century lower class writers’ private letters. In Marina Dossena & Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds.), Letter writing in Late Modern Europe, 45–64. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan & Nils Langer
2012Jespersen’s cycle and the history of German negation: Challenges from a sociolinguistic perspective. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 113. 275–292.Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan, Nils Langer, Joachim Scharloth & Wim Vandenbussche
(eds.) 2007Germanic language histories ‘from below’ (1700–2000). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fairman, Tony
2007“Lower-order” letters, schooling and the English language, 1795 to 1834. In Stephan Elspaß, Nils Langer, Joachim Scharloth & Wim Vandenbussche (eds.), Germanic Language Histories ‘from below’ (1700–2000), 31–43. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Letters in mechanically-schooled language: Theories and ideologies. In Marina Dossena & Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds.), Letter writing in Late Modern Europe, 205–227. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Falkenberg, Gabriel
2001Lexical sensitivity in negative polarity verbs. In Jack Hoeksema, Hotze Rullmann, Victor Sánchez-Valencia & Ton van der Wouden (eds.), Perspectives on negation and polarity items, 79–97. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Christian
2000Mundartreflexe in der frühneuzeitlichen Schreibsprache der Stadt Soest. In Michael Elmentaler (ed.), Regionalsprachen, Stadtsprachen und Institutionssprachen im historischen Prozess, 101–115. Vienna: Edition Praesens.Google Scholar
Frijhoff, Willem & Marijke Spies
19991650. Bevochten eendracht. The Hague: Sdu.Google Scholar
Gaspar, R.J.G.A.A.
2003De Doesburgse brievencollectie: Aspecten van het leven in de Repu­bliek der Verenigde Nederlanden tegen het einde van de achttiende eeuw. Bijdragen en mededelingen Gelre: Historisch Jaarboek van Gelderland XCIV. 47–80.Google Scholar
van Gelder, Roelof
2006Verslag van een inventariserend onderzoek naar Nederlandse brieven in het archief van het High Court of Admiralty in The National Archives in Kew, Groot-Brittannië. The Hague: Koninklijke Bibliotheek.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward
2000The dependence locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Alec Marantz, Yasushi Miyashita & Wayne O’Neil (eds.), Image, language, brain, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1979On understanding grammar. New York: Academia Press.Google Scholar
2009The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gledhill, John Michael
1973Aspects of the development of Dutch consonantal spelling. S.l.Google Scholar
Goeman, A.C.M.
1999T-deletie in Nederlandse dialecten: kwantitatieve analyse van structurele, ruimtelijke en temporele variatie. Den Haag: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goossens, J., J. Taeldeman & G. Verleyen
2000Fonologische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten. Deel II: De Westgermaanse korte vocalen in open lettergreep. Deel III: De Westgermaanse lange vocalen en diftongen. Ghent: KANTL.Google Scholar
Goss, Emily L.
2002Negotiated language change in Early Modern Holland: Immigration and linguistic variation in The Hague (1600–1670). Unpublished dissertation. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Goss, Emily L. & Robert B. Howell
2006Social and structural factors in the development of Dutch urban dialects in the early modern period. In Thomas Craven (ed.), Variation and reconstruction, 59–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graff, Harvey J.
1987The legacies of literacy: Continuities and contradictions in western culture and society. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane & Fanny Meunier
2008Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greidanus, Johanna
1926Beginselen en ontwikkeling van de interpunctie, in ’t biezonder in de Nederlanden. Zeist: Vonk & Co.Google Scholar
de Haan, Ger J. & Fred Weerman
1984Taaltypologie, taalverandering en mogelijke grammatica’s: het Middelnederlandse “en”. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 100. 161–190.Google Scholar
Hakvoord, Barend
, Gemeene zend-brieven, zoo die in de Duitse scholen van Nederland worden geleert. Dordrecht[ca. 1750]: Hendrik Walpot.Google Scholar
, Gemeene zend-brieven, zo die in de Duitsche scholen van Nederland worden geleerd. Deventer 1794: J.H. de Lange.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan
1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2007The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heinsius, Jacobus
1897Klank- en buigingsleer van de taal des Statenbijbels. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
van Helten, W.L.
1881Vondel’s taal: Een proeve van onderzoek naar de grammatica van het Ne­derlandsch der zeventiende eeuw. Vormleer. Rotterdam: Petri.Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre
(eds) 2012The handbook of historical sociolinguistics. Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & Natalie Schilling
2012The application of the quantitative paradigm to historical sociolinguistics: Problems with the generalizability principle. In Hernández-Campoy & Conde-Silvestre (eds.), 63–79.
Höchli, Stefan
1981Zur Geschichte der Interpunktion im Deutschen. Berlijn & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack
1994On the grammaticalization of negative polarity items. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 20. 273–282.
Hoeksema, Jacob
1997Negation and negative concord in Middle Dutch. In Danielle Forget, Paul Hirschbühler, France Martineau & María-Luisa Rivero (eds), Negation and polarity: Syntax and semantics, 139–156. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hol, Adriana R.
1941Het prefix in het verleden deelwoord. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche Taal- en Letterkunde 60. 249–293.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2003Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Horst, Joop
1988Over relatief dat en wat . De nieuwe taalgids 81. 194–205.Google Scholar
1993Voornaamwoordelijke bijwoorden in 16de-eeuws Nederlands. Spektator 22. 290–308.Google Scholar
2008Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. 2 vols. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
van der Horst, Joop & Marijke van der Wal
1979Negatieverschijnselen en woordvolgorde in de geschiedenis van het Nederlands. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 95. 6–37.Google Scholar
van der Horst, J.M. & R. Storm
1991Over de geschiedenis van het betrekkelijk voornaamwoordelijk bijwoord. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 107. 105–119.Google Scholar
Howell, Robert B.
2006Immigration and koineisation: The formation of early modern Dutch urban vernaculars. Transactions of the Philological Society 104. 207–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis
2000Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1999Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3. 272–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobi, Heyman
1645Ghemeyne zeyndt-brieven / profijtelijck voor de ouders / meesters ende kinderen / om te leeren brieven dichten / wel te leven / ende ordentelijck te schrijven. Hoorn: Isaac Willemsz.Google Scholar
1656Gemeene zeyndt-brieven / profijtelijck voor de ouders / meesters ende kinderen / om te leeren brieven dichten / wel lesen / ende ordentlijck te schrijven. Arnhem: Jan Jacobsz.Google Scholar
1728Ghemeyne sendbrieven: Seer profijtigh voor d’ouders, meesters ende kinderen, om te lesen, brieven dichten, en ordentelijck te schrijven. Antwerpen: Alexander Josephus Everaerts.Google Scholar
1792Gemene zend-brieven: Zeer voordeelig voor de ouders, meesters ende kinderen, om te leeren brieven dichten, ende ordentelyk schryven. Venlo: Wed. Hubert Bontamps.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Bart & Marijke van der Wal
. To appear. The discovery, nature, and implications of a Papiamentu text fragment from 1783. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages.
Joseph, John E.
1987Eloquence and power: The rise of language standards and standard languages. New York: Blackwell/ London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Irma Taavitsainen
2003Diachronic perspectives on address term systems: Introduction. In Irma Taavitsainen & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on address term systems, 1–25. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Jonathan Culpeper
2010Historical (Im)politeness: An introduction. In: Jonathan Culpeper & Dániel Z. Kádár, Historical (Im)politeness, 9–36. Bern etc.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
ten Kate, Lambert
1723Aenleiding tot de kennisse van het verhevene deel der Nederduitse sprake. 2 vols. Reprint and introduction by Jan Noordegraaf & Marijke van der Wal. Alphen aan den Rijn 2001: Canaletto.Google Scholar
Keijzer, Merel
2007Last in first out? An investigation of the regression hypothesis in Dutch emigrants in Anglophone Canada. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul
2002Koineization and accommodation. In Jack Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 669–702. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kloek, Joost & Wijnand Mijnhardt
20011800. Blauwdrukken voor een samenleving. The Hague: Sdu.Google Scholar
Kloeke, Gesinus G.
1933De Noordnederlandsche tegenstelling westoost-zuid weerspiegeld in de a-woorden: Een dialectgeographische excursie om de Zuiderzee. [Part 1]. Nieuwe Taalgids 27. 241–256.Google Scholar
1934De Noordnederlandsche tegenstelling westoost-zuid weerspiegeld in de a-woorden: Een dialectgeographische excursie om de Zuiderzee. [Part 2]. Nieuwe Taalgids 28. 64–85.Google Scholar
(1934–1935) De Amsterdamsche volkstaal voorheen en thans. Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde 77–79-A. 1–27.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher
1985Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgebrauch. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36. 15–43.Google Scholar
Koelmans, L.
1959Teken en klank bij Michiel de Ruyter. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
2001Het Nederlands van Michiel de Ruyter. Morfologie, woordvorming, syntaxis. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Kók, A.L.
1649Ont-werp der Neder-duitsche letter-konst. Amsterdam: Johannes Troost.Google Scholar
Koning, Paula
1997Hooft en Mostart: Een Nederduitse secretaris voor P.C. Hooft. In Jeroen Jansen (ed.), Omnibus idem: Opstellen over P.C. Hooft ter gelegenheid van zijn driehonderdvijftigste sterfdag, 83–100. Hilversum: Verloren.Google Scholar
Kooijmans, Luuc
1997Vriendschap en de kunst van het overleven in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw. Amsterdam: Bakker.Google Scholar
Koolenkamp, Willem
1740Send-brieven, dienstig voor de Jeugt. Utrecht: J.V. Poolsum.Google Scholar
Kuiper, Koenraad
2009Formulaic genres. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, Koenraad & Douglas Haggo
1984Livestock auctioneers, oral poetry, and ordinary language. Language in Society 13. 205–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Wouter
2003Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Kuijpers, Erika
1997Lezen en schrijven: Onderzoek naar het alfabetiseringsniveau in zeventiende-eeuws Amsterdam. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis 23. 490–522.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1994Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1. Internal Factors. Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea & Taru Nordlund
2012Performing identities and interaction through epistolary formulae. In Marina Dossena & Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), Letter writing in Late Modern Europe, 65–88. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger
1992Phonology and morphology. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Volume II. 1066–1476, 23–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Phonology and morphology. In: Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Volume III. 1476–1776, 56–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1984Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lennard, John
1995Punctuation: And – “Pragmatics”. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English, 65–98. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leupenius, Petrus
1653Aanmerkingen op de Neederduitsche taale. Amsterdam: Donker.Google Scholar
Leuvensteijn, Arjan van
2000aAanspreekvormen in de Sara Burgerhart: Een inventarisatie. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde116. 121–131.Google Scholar
2000bOver Uw Edele, Uwé en Juffrouw: Zijdelingse aanspreking in de Sara Burgerhart . Voortgang, jaarboek voor de neerlandistiek 19. 87–93.Google Scholar
van Loey, Adolphe
1980Middelnederlandse spraakkunst.I. Vormleer. 9th ed. Groningen & Jakarta: Wolters / Antwerp: De Sikkel.Google Scholar
1965Middelnederlandse spraakkunst. II. Klankleer. 4th ed. Groningen: Wolters/ Antwerp: De Sikkel.Google Scholar
Loock, Rudy
2007Appositive relative clauses and their functions in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 336–362. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Loon, Jozef
1986Historische fonologie van het Nederlands. Leuven & Amersfoort: Acco.Google Scholar
MAND = Morfologische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten. Vol. I Ed. by Georges de Schutter, Boudewijn van den Berg, Ton Goeman & Thera de Jong. Amsterdam 2005: Amsterdam University Press.
MAND = Morfologische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten. Vol. II Ed. by Ton Goeman, Marc van Oostendorp, Pieter van Reenen, Oele Koornwinder, Boudewijn van den Berg & Anke van Reenen. Amsterdam 2008: Amsterdam University Press.
Martineau, France
2007Variation in Canadian French usage from the 18th to the 19th century. Multilingua 26. 203–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Written documents: What they tell us about linguistic usage. In Ma­rijke J. van der Wal & Gijsbert Rutten, Touching the past: Studies in the historical sociolinguistics of ego-documents, 129–147. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marynissen, Ann
2009Taalverandering tussen evolutie en normering: De e-apocope als breuklijn tussen het Nederlands en het Duits. Nederlandse Taalkunde 14. 233–254.Google Scholar
Meier, A.J.
1995Defining politeness: universality in appropriateness. Language Sciences 17. 345–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Métayer, Christine
2000Au tombeau des secrets: les écrivains publics du Paris populaire, Cimetière des Saints-Innocents XVIe-XVIIIe siècle. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
Mihm, Arend
1998Arbeitersprache und gesprochene Sprache im 19. Jahrhundert. In Dieter Cherubim, Siegfried Grosse & Klaus J. Mattheier (eds.), Sprache und bürgerliche Nation: Beiträge zur deutschen und europäischen Sprachgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts, 282–316. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Millar, Robert McColl
2012The problem of reading dialect in semiliterate letters. The correspondence of the Holden family, 1812–16 and of Richard Taylor 1840–51. In Marina Dossena & Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds.), Letter writing in Late Modern Europe, 163–177. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James
1992Middle English dialectology. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Volume II. 1066–1476, 156–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994The notion of ‘standard language’ and its applicability to the study of Early Modern English pronunciation. In Dieter Stein & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English 1600–1800, 19–29. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007The ideology of the standard language. In Carmen Llmamas, Louise Mullany & Peter Stockwell (eds.), The Routledge companion to sociolinguistics, 133–139. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Linda C.
2007Letter-writing instruction manuals in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England. In: Carol Poster & Linda C. Mitchell (eds.), Letter-writing manuals and instruction from antiquity to the present: Historical and bibliographical studies, 178–199. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2008The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 84. 69–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MNW = Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek. gtb​.inl​.nl.
Moonen, Arnold 1706Nederduitsche spraekkunst. Amsterdam: Halma.Google Scholar
Mostart, D.
1637Nederduytse secretaris oft zendbriefschryver, met een tytelboexken. Amsterdam: Dirck Pietersz.Google Scholar
Nevala, Minna
2003Family first: Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century. In: Irma Taavitsainen & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on address term systems, 147–176. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004aInside and out: Forms of address in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century letters. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5. 271–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004bAddress in early English correspondence: Its forms and socio-pragmatic functions. Helsinki: Société Néphilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu
2001Continental conventions in early English Correspondence. In: Hans-Jürgen Diller & Manfred Görlach (eds.), Towards a history of English as a history of genre, 203–224. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin Brunberg
1995Constraints on politeness: The pragmatics of address formulae in early English correspondence. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English, 541–601. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(eds) 1996Sociolinguistics and language history: Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2003Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. London etc.: Longman.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg
2012Historical sociolinguistics: Origins, motivations, and paradigms. In Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 22–40. Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Gijsbert Rutten
2012Introduction: comparative historical sociolinguistics and the history of negation. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 113. 261–273.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade
2006Standardisation. In Richard Hogg & David Denison (eds.), A history of the English language, 271–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nitta, H.
2002Historische Entwicklung des Bestandes der subordinierenden Konjunktionen des Deutschen. In P. Wiesinger, et al. (eds.), Akten des X. Internationalen Germanistenkongresses. Vol. 2, 321–330. Berlin etc.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nobels, Judith
2013(Extra)Ordinary letters: A view from below on seventeenth-century Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Nobels, Judith & Marijke van der Wal
2012Linking words to writers: Building a reliable corpus for historical sociolinguistic research. In Nils Langer, Steffan Davies & Wim Vandenbussche (eds.), Language and history, linguistics and historiography: Interdisciplinary approaches, 343–361. Bern etc.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal R.
2000Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, Martin A. & David C. Krakauer
1999The evolution of language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 96. 8028–8033.
Nowak, Martin A., Joshua B. Plotkin & Vincent A.A. Jansen
2000The evolution of syntactic communication. Nature 404. 495–498. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nurmi, Arja
2002Does size matter? The Corpus of Early English Correspondence and its sampler. In Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Matti Rissanen (eds), Variation past and present: VARIENG studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen, 173–184. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Ong, Walter J.
2002 [1982] Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the world. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
ONW = Oudnederlands Woordenboek. gtb​.inl​.nl.
Paardekooper, Piet
2006 Bloei en ondergang van onbeperkt ne/en, vooral dat bij niet-woorden. neerlandistiek.nl 06.02 (see http://​www​.neerlandistiek​.nl​/06​.02/).
Pahta, Päivi, Minna Palander-Collin, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi
2010Language practices in the construction of social roles in Late Modern English. In: Pahta, Päivi, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander-Collin (eds.), Social roles and language practices in Late Modern English, 1–27. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna, Minna Nevala & Arja Nurmi
2009The language of daily life in the history of English: Studying how macro meets micro. In Arja Nurmi, Minna Nevala & Minna Palander-Collin (eds), The language of daily life in England (1400–1800), 1–23. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew & Frances Hodgetts Syder
1983Natural selection in syntax: Notes on adaptive variation and change in vernacular and literary grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 7. 551–579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Planque, P.A.
1926Valcooch’s regel der Duytsche schoolmeesters: Bijdrage tot de kennis van het schoolwezen in de zestiende eeuw. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
von Polenz, Peter
1994Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Volume II. 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, Volume I. Einführung – Grundbegriffe - 14. bis 16 Jahrhundert. 2nd ed. Berlin & New York: de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Poss, Michaela & Ton van der Wouden
2005. Extended lexical units in Dutch. In: T. van der Wouden, M. Poss, H. Reckman, & C. Cremers (eds.), Computational linguistics in the Netherlands 2004: Selected papers from the fifteenth CLIN meeting, 187–202. Utrecht: LOT. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poster, Carol & Linda C. Mitchell
(eds.) 2007Letter-writing manuals and instruction from antiquity to the present: Historical and bibliographical studies. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice & Martin Neef
2004Introduction: From letter to sound: new perspectives on writing systems. Written Language and Literacy 7. 133–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rem, Margit
2003De taal van de klerken uit de Hollandse grafelijke kanselarij (1300–1340). Naar een lokaliseringsprocedure voor het veertiende-eeuws Middelnederlands. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M.
1999Syntax. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Volume III. 1476–1776, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roosenboom, H.Th.M.
1997De dorpsschool in de Meijerij van ’s-Hertogenbosch van 1648 tot 1795. Tilburg: Stichting Zuidelijk Historisch Contact.Google Scholar
Ruberg, Willemijn
2005Conventionele correspondentie: briefcultuur van de Nederlandse elite, 1770–1850. Nijmegen: Vantilt.Google Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert
2008Norms for style and grammar in eighteenth-century Dutch prose, and the effect of education and of writing experience. Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics. See http://​www​.let​.leidenuniv​.nl​/hsl​_shl​/Rutten​.htm.Google Scholar
2009aUit de geschiedenis van de spelling: Over de scherp- en zachtlange [e:] en [o:]. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 119. 85–140.Google Scholar
2009bGrammar to the people: The Dutch language and the public sphere in the 18th century. With special reference to Kornelis van der Palm. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 19. 55–86.Google Scholar
2010Vroegmoderne relativa: naar een diachrone constructiegrammatica. Nederlandse Taalkunde 15. 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012“Lowthian” linguistics across the North Sea. Historiographia Linguistica 39. 43–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert, Rik Vosters & Marijke van der Wal
. To appear. Frenchification in discourse and practice: Loan morphology in Dutch private letters of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In Catharina Peersman, Gijsbert Rutten & Rik Vosters (eds.) Romance-Germanic contact in the Low Countries. The past, present and future of a “language border”. Berlin: De Gruyter.Crossref
Rutten, Gijsbert & Marijke van der Wal
2011Local dialects, supralocal writing systems: The degree of orality of Dutch private letters from the seventeenth century. Written Language & Literacy 14. 251–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Functions of epistolary formulae in Dutch letters from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13. 173–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Epistolary formulae and writing experience in Dutch letters from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In Marijke J. van der Wal & Gijsbert Rutten, Touching the past: Studies in the historical sociolinguistics of ego-documents, 45–65. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
. To appear. Discourse continuity and the written channel: Continuative relative clauses in the history of Dutch. In: Hubert Cuykens, Lobke Ghesquiere and Daniël Van Olmen (eds.) Aspects of grammaticalization.
Rutten, Gijsbert, Marijke van der Wal, Judith Nobels & Tanja Simons
2012Negation in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Dutch: A historical-sociolinguistic perspective. Neuphilo­logische Mitteilungen 113. 323–342.Google Scholar
Salmon, Vivian
1999Orthography and punctuation. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Volume III 1476–1776, 13–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salmons, Joseph
2012A history of German. What the past reveals about today’s language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey, David Gil & Peter Trudgill
2009Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
SAND = Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten. Vol. II Ed. Sjef Barbiers, Johan Van der Auwera, Hans Bennis, Eefje Boef, Gunther De Vogelaer & Margreet van der Ham. Amsterdam 2008: Amsterdam University Press.
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987Discourse markers. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W.
2002Investigating variation and change in written documents. In Jack Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 67–96. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schönfeld, Moritz/ van Loey, Adolphe
1954 5th ed. Historische grammatica van het Nederlands. Zutphen: Thieme.Google Scholar
Schoonenboom, J.
1997De geschiedenis van dat, wat en hetgeen in bijbelvertalingen. Nederlandse Taalkunde 2. 343–369.Google Scholar
de Schutter, Georges & Hanne Kloots
2000Relatieve woorden in het literaire Nederlands van de 17e eeuw. Nederlandse Taalkunde 5. 325–342.Google Scholar
de la Serre, J.P.
1654Fatsoenlicke zend-brief-schrijver. Amsterdam: Jacob Benjamin.Google Scholar
van der Sijs, Nicoline
2004Taal als mensenwerk: het ontstaan van het ABN. The Hague: Sdu.Google Scholar
Simons, Tanja
2009“Ik heb ook nu niet uijt mijn alderbest geschreven”: Achttiende-eeuwse brievenboekjes en de gekaapte brieven van Aagje Luijtsen. De Achttiende Eeuw 41. 167–191.Google Scholar
2013Ongekend 18e-eeuws Nederlands: Taalvariatie in persoonlijke brieven. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John
1998The lexical item. In: Edda Wiegand (ed.), Contrastive lexical semantics, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008The phrase, the whole phrase and nothing but the phrase. In: Granger & Meunier 2008, 407–410.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John McH. & Anna Mauranen
2006Linear unit grammar: integrating speech and writing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smyters, Anthoni
1613Schryf-kunst-boeck. Amsterdam: Nicolaes Biestkens.Google Scholar
Statenbijbel
1637Biblia: Dat is de gantsche H. Schrifture, vervattende alle de canonijcke boeken des Ouden en des Nieuwen Testaments. ­­Leiden: Paulus Aertsz. van Ravensteyn.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E.
1990From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma & Andreas H. Jucker
(eds.) 2003Diachronic perspectives on address term systems. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1987Repetition in conversation: Toward a poetics of talk. Language 63. 574–605. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid
1987The auxiliary DO in eighteenth-century English: A sociohistorical-linguistic approach. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Of formulas and friends: Expressions of politeness in John Gay’s letters. In Guy A.J. Tops, Betty Devriendt, Steven Geukens (eds.), Thinking English grammar to honour Xavier Dekeyser, 99–112. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
2005Of social networks and linguistic influence: The language of Robert Lowth and his correspondents. International Journal of English Studies 5.1. 135–157.Google Scholar
2008The 1760s: Grammars, grammarians and the booksellers. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, grammarians and grammar-­writing in eighteenth-century England, 101–124. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tiisala, Seija
2004Power and politeness. Languages and salutation formulas in correspondence between Sweden and the German Hanse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5. 193–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Tollenaere, F.
1957Fonologie of versleer? Was de ‘h’ in het 16de-eeuwse Amsterdams een ‘wankel foneem’?. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 75. 119–144.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2008Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van den Toorn, Maarten C.
1977De problematiek van de Nederlandse aanspreekvormen. De Nieuwe Taalgids 70. 520–540.Google Scholar
van Tricht, H.W.
1976–1979De briefwisseling van Pieter Corneliszoon Hooft. 3 vols. Culemborg: Tjeenk Willink & Noorduijn.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
1986Dialect in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2011Sociolinguistic typology: social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vandenbussche, Wim
1999“Arbeitersprache” in Bruges during the 19th century. In Helga Bister-Broosen (ed.), Beiträge zur historischen Stadtsprachenforschung, 49–65. Vienna: Edition Praesen.Google Scholar
2002Dutch orthography in lower, middle and upper class documents in 19th-century Flanders. In Andrew Linn & Nicola McLelland (eds.), Standardization: studies from the Germanic languages, 27–42. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verdenius, Andries A.
1943Het h-phoneem in het 17de-eeuwse Amsterdams. De Nieuwe Taalgids 37. 141–147.Google Scholar
Vermaas, J.A.M.
2002Veranderingen in de Nederlandse aanspreekvormen van de dertiende t/m de twintigste eeuw. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
de Vink, Leendert
2004Dialect en dialectverandering in Katwijk aan Zee. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
van Vliet, Adri P.
2007Een vriendelijcke groetenisse’. Brieven van het thuisfront aan de vloot van De Ruyter (1664–1665). Franeker: Van Wijnen.Google Scholar
VNMW = Vroegmiddelnederlands Woordenboek. gtb​.inl​.nl.
Voeste, Anja
2007Traveling through the lexicon: ‘self-organized’ spelling changes. Written Language and Literacy 10. 89–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Vogelaer, Gunther
2008De Nederlandse en Friese subjectsmarkeerders: geografie, typologie en diachronie. Gent: KANTL.Google Scholar
de Vooys, Cornelius G.N.
1952Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal. 5th ed. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Vosters, Rik
2011Taalgebruik, taalnormen en taalbeschouwing in Vlaanderen tijdens het Verenigd Koninkrijk der Nederlanden: Een historisch-sociolinguïstische verkenning van vroeg-negentiende-eeuws Zuidelijk Nederlands. PhD dissertation. Brussel: Vrije Universiteit Brussel.Google Scholar
Vosters, Rik & Wim Vandenbussche
2012Bipartite negation in 18th and early 19th century Southern Dutch: Sociolinguistic aspects of norms and variation. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 113. 343–364.Google Scholar
Vosters, Rik, Gijsbert Rutten & Marijke van der Wal
(2010) Mythes op de pijnbank: Naar een herwaardering van de taalsituatie in de Nederlanden in de achttiende en negentiende eeuw. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde 120. 93–112.Google Scholar
van der Wal, Marijke
1990Taalidealen, taalnormen en taalverandering: Johan de Brune in linguïstisch perspectief. In P.J. Verkruijsse (ed.), Johan de Brune de Oude (1588–1658): Een Zeeuws literator en staatsman uit de zeventiende eeuw,54–68. Middelburg: Koninklijk Zeeuwsch Genootschap der Wetenschappen.Google Scholar
2002Relativisation in the history of Dutch: major shift or lexical change? In Patricia Poussa (ed.), Relativisation on the North Sea littoral, 27–36. München: Lincom.Google Scholar
van der Wal, Marijke
2006Onvoltooid verleden tijd: Witte vlekken in de taalgeschiedenis. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar
2007Eighteenth-century linguistic variation from the perspective of a Dutch diary and a collection of private letters. In Stephan Elspaß, Nils Langer, Joachim Schar­loth & Wim Vandenbussche (eds.), Germanic language histories ‘from below’ (1700–2000), 83–96. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
200818de-eeuwse brieven, taalverandering en de “language history from below”. Tydskrif vir Nederlands en Afrikaans, 15(1). 93–101.Google Scholar
van der Wal, Marijke, Gijsbert Rutten & Tanja Simons
2012Letters as loot. Confiscated letters filling major gaps in the history of Dutch. In Marina Dossena & Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds.), Letter writing in Late Modern Europe, 139–161. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Wal, Marijke & Gijsbert Rutten
2013aVariatie, conventies en verandering: Zeventiende- en achttiende-eeuwse buitgemaakte brieven onder de loep. Internationale Neerlandistiek 51. 122–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013bThe practice of letter writing: Skills, models, and Early Modern Dutch manuals. Language & History 56. 18–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Wal, Marijke J. & Gijsbert Rutten
(eds) 2013cEgo-documents in a historical-sociolinguistic perspective. In Marijke J. van der Wal & Gijsbert Rutten (eds), Touching the past: Studies in the historical sociolinguistics of ego-documents, 1–17. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard J.
1989Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8. 131–166 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard & Peter Trudgill
(eds.) 2002Alternative histories of English. London & New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weijnen, A.
1956Zeventiende-eeuwse taal. Zutphen: W.J. Thieme & Cie.Google Scholar
Weijnen, Antonius A.
1966Nederlandse dialectkunde. Assen: van Gorcum etc.Google Scholar
Whyman, Susan E.
2009The pen and the people: English letter writers 1660–1800. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willemyns, Roland & Wim Vandenbussche
2000Historische sociolinguïstiek: het ‘Brugge-project’. Taal en Tongval 52. 258–276.Google Scholar
WNT = Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal. gtb​.inl​.nl
Wood, Johanna L.
2004Text in context: A critical discourse analysis approach to Margaret Paston. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5. 229–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Structures and expectations: A systematic analysis of Margaret Paston’s formulaic and expressive language. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10. 187– 214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Wouden, Ton
1994Negative contexts. PhD dissertation. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
1998On the development of marked negation systems: The Dutch situation in the seventeenth century. In Richard M. Hogg & Linda van Bergen (eds), Historical Linguistics 1995, Volume 2, 311–329. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison
2002Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Wulf, Chris, Jan Goossens & Johan Taeldeman
2005Fonologische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten, Deel IV: de consonanten. Ghent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given
2018.  In Patterns of Change in 18th-century English [Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 8], Crossref logo
Conde-Silvestre, J. Camilo
2016.  In Handbook of Pragmatics, Crossref logo
Dollinger, Stefan
2019.  In Keeping in Touch [Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 10], Crossref logo
Graber, Kathryn E.
2015. On the Disassembly Line: Linguistic Anthropology in 2014. American Anthropologist 117:2  pp. 350 ff. Crossref logo
Hickey, Raymond
2019.  In Keeping in Touch [Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 10], Crossref logo
Kaislaniemi, Samuli, Mel Evans, Teo Juvonen & Anni Sairio
2017.  In Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics [Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 7],  pp. 187 ff. Crossref logo
Krogull, Andreas, Gijsbert Rutten & Marijke J. van der Wal
2017.  In Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics [Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 7],  pp. 157 ff. Crossref logo
Marcus, Imogen
2018.  In The Linguistics of Spoken Communication in Early Modern English Writing,  pp. 321 ff. Crossref logo
Rutten, Gijsbert
2016. Historicizing diaglossia. Journal of Sociolinguistics 20:1  pp. 6 ff. Crossref logo
Rutten, Gijsbert, Andreas Krogull & Bob Schoemaker
2020. Implementation and acceptance of national language policy: the case of Dutch (1750–1850). Language Policy 19:2  pp. 259 ff. Crossref logo
Säily, Tanja, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin & Anita Auer
2017.  In Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics [Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 7],  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Włodarczyk, Matylda
2017. Auer, Anita, Daniel Schreier and Richard Watts (eds). 2015. Letter Writing and Language Change . Journal of Historical Pragmatics 18:1  pp. 142 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CFF – Historical & comparative linguistics
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2014023573 | Marc record